Apple has been taking heat over global advertisements that show the iPhone 3G performing at speeds vastly faster than real world 3G (or 2G) networks operate. Two such ads were recently banned in the UK, to which Apple responded that the ads were "relative rather than absolute in nature." Here in the States, one 70-year-old San Diego resident filed suit against Apple for misleading advertising. Techdirt directs our attention to the fact that Apple this week responded to the suit, denying that the ads lie, but then adding this comment:

"Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact," Apple said in its answer.

In other words, we're not lying, but you're an idiot if you believed what we were saying. Of course there's a fairly obvious chasm (see video comparison) between the ads and real-world performance. Apple faces five lawsuits related to the performance (or lack thereof) of the iPhone when connected to networks in the real world, but the attorney for this false advertising case thinks their case "has the most teeth and the most legs to it."

Apple isn't lying in television ads that tout the iPhone 3G as twice as fast as its predecessor, but customers would have to be fools to take those claims at face value, the company argues.

That's essentially Apple's legal response to a lawsuit filed by San Diego resident William Gillis back in September alleging that Apple and AT&T knowingly oversold the new iPhone alongside misleading ads that promised it would perform twice as fast as the original model.

Apple's 9-page reply begins early off by maintaining that any statements it made "were truthful and accurate and were not misleading or deceptive." But it was a bullet point response a few pages later the caught the eye of Wired, as it suggests that only a fool would believe what the company says in its ads.

"Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact," Apple's attorneys wrote.

Gillis' complaint was the second of now half a dozen to charge the iPhone maker with selling a handset that didn't live up to the company's hype. Apple has moved to dismiss several of the other complaints, but hasn't made the same request regarding the suit at hand.

Michael Ian Rott, Gillis' attorney, believes that's because his client's allegations have "the most teeth and the most legs" and that if there was "any way that Apple could get out of it, they would have filed a motion to dismiss here, too." Or, it could be that Gillis is no stranger to Apple.

The 70-year old and an acquaintance sued Apple back in 2005 for misrepresenting the size of hard drives shipping in the then popular PowerBook G4. Apple ultimately settled, giving Gillis a free iPod and Ian Rott -- yes, the same lawyer -- $7500 to cover his legal fees.

Word of Apple's response in the iPhone suit comes just days after the UK's Advertising Standards Authority banned a television advertisement for the touch-screen handset after 17 viewers "complained that the ad was misleading, because they believed it exaggerated the speed of the iPhone 3G."

Apple's latest banned iPhone ad

The ad, which claimed the iPhone 3G could surf the Internet "really fast," was the second to be pulled from the air by ASA on grounds that it was misleading. In August, the regulator banned a similar 30-second spot which stated that "all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone."

That assertion was misleading, the ASA said, because the iPhone does not support Flash or Java, two proprietary technologies that sometimes prove integral in the display of certain web pages.

Apple isn't lying in television ads that tout the iPhone 3G as twice as fast as its predecessor, but customers would have to be fools to take those claims at face value, the company argues.

That's essentially Apple's legal response to a lawsuit filed by San Diego resident William Gillis back in September alleging that Apple and AT&T knowingly oversold the new iPhone alongside misleading ads that promised it would perform twice as fast as the original model.

Apple's 9-page reply begins early off by maintaining that any statements it made "were truthful and accurate and were not misleading or deceptive." But it was a bullet point response a few pages later the caught the eye of Wired, as it suggests that only a fool would believe what the company says in its ads.

"Plaintiff's claims, and those of the purported class, are barred by the fact that the alleged deceptive statements were such that no reasonable person in Plaintiff's position could have reasonably relied on or misunderstood Apple's statements as claims of fact," Apple's attorneys wrote.

Gillis' complaint was the second of now half a dozen to charge the iPhone maker with selling a handset that didn't live up to the company's hype. Apple has moved to dismiss several of the other complaints, but hasn't made the same request regarding the suit at hand.

Michael Ian Rott, Gillis' attorney, believes that's because his client's allegations have "the most teeth and the most legs" and that if there was "any way that Apple could get out of it, they would have filed a motion to dismiss here, too." Or, it could be that Gillis is no stranger to Apple.

The 70-year old and an acquaintance sued Apple back in 2005 for misrepresenting the size of hard drives shipping in the then popular PowerBook G4. Apple ultimately settled, giving Gillis a free iPod and Ian Rott -- yes, the same lawyer -- $7500 to cover his legal fees.

Word of Apple's response in the iPhone suit comes just days after the UK's Advertising Standards Authority banned a television advertisement for the touch-screen handset after 17 viewers "complained that the ad was misleading, because they believed it exaggerated the speed of the iPhone 3G."

Apple's latest banned iPhone ad

The ad, which claimed the iPhone 3G could surf the Internet "really fast," was the second to be pulled from the air by ASA on grounds that it was misleading. In August, the regulator banned a similar 30-second spot which stated that "all the parts of the internet are on the iPhone."

That assertion was misleading, the ASA said, because the iPhone does not support Flash or Java, two proprietary technologies that sometimes prove integral in the display of certain web pages.

Please tell me which car to buy, cause I need some honest opinions, wait! I will watch prime time TV tonight, sure to find an honest answer there

-------

Anyone who believes any advertisements is setting themselves up to be fooled. I do not understand why Apple is being held to a higher standard than any other advertiser. As a previous poster pointed out, there are definitely circumstances in which G2 iPhones are 2 or more times faster....

I see no wrong with Apple lying in ads cause this happens ALL the time, people like to make it a big deal cause its Apple and everyone knows how popular are iPod or iPhone so by suing them its like free air time.

MS lies about Vista, Coke lies about their product, my national internet company lies about their internet can make people smarter so this is just a way for people to get money the easy way.

Ads is meant to sound nice for people to read and hear. Go and read reviews and forums for the real truth. Period

To be fair, if we took every advertisement at face value and complained about every single one none would be aired. We did advertisements for IKEA and people complained to the ASA saying that it promoted household violence, people complain to much instead. If you don't like it, take it back!

No they dont. If yours stupid enough to watch the ad and then say mine doesnt do it as fast as that then you are just plain naieve.

I beg to differ - on a phone network OK but on wireless no way Jose. Safari is quite slow to render pages even when you are sitting next to the router on a corporate network connection where I would define the bandwidth with 'sufficient'

I can see how people might be disappointed about this and as it is the trend of the time to immediately sue, hoping one gets at least a free iPod and 15 Minutes of fame.....